New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

jorian319 - 12:05pm Oct 26, 2003 EST (# 15673 of 15682)
The earth spin rate is slowing 2 msc/day as evidenced by the additon of a leap second every 500 days - James "I failed math" Nienhuis

I was thinking last night (hey - it could happen!) about WHY anyone would launch a missile attack on the US. I came to the conclusion that it would only happen if the leader of a nation advanced enough to build and launch them, were intent on destroying the world. There's no way they could avoid retaliation.

If they were trying to hurt the US, kill its citizens and destroy its cities, they'd take their time and smuggle (or build domestically) all the devices and get them in place, then push the button. Why go to all the expense of building a fancy delivery system that would only ensure one's own demise, when a low-tech and more effective system would not only serve the purpose, but also ensure against retalitation?

IMHO, the only threat of a missile attack would come from a small, suicidal rogue state whos own immolation was not a concern.

bluestar23 - 12:12pm Oct 26, 2003 EST (# 15674 of 15682)

"to send a short email"

Huh..? what a crock...first, why didn't you telephone the Times as Showalter said he would last week..then he said a letter...now, "hoping" (why "hoping..can't he send an email even?)..."by the end of the day" what nonsense...send it now!

bluestar23 - 12:16pm Oct 26, 2003 EST (# 15675 of 15682)

"to hurt the US, kill its citizens and destroy its cities, they'd take their time and smuggle (or build domestically) all the devices and get them in place, then push the button."

to regularly and professionally infiltrate a country on guard and plant relatively large and complex devices everywhere would be a highly difficult task, one unlikely to remain undetected.....

bluestar23 - 12:18pm Oct 26, 2003 EST (# 15676 of 15682)

really, showalter's such a blast, he's at least half the reason I come on here...too funny..

wrcooper - 12:20pm Oct 26, 2003 EST (# 15677 of 15682)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Wlj8bhuLS24.4942427@.f28e622/17386

jorian319

I basically agree with you. As I've said, the more demonstrably effective an ABM system is, the more incentive an adversary would have to use low-tech delivery means.

Building an ICBM is an extremely difficult and costly endeavor. It's possible that North Korea could pull it off, but if that rogue nation ever should come to pose a first-strike against the United States, I have no doubt we could neutralize it before Kim-Il-Sung could use it. But long before such a power developed an ICBM nuclear capability, we should have exercised decisive political and economic leverage to head it off. I recently linked a story that demonstrated our power in that capacity. Other potential adversaries, such as Iran, Syria and Libya, could be dealt with similarly. An ABM system is the least dependable of the defense options we have to deal with the threat that the government has identified. It's extremely costly and does not, in its present state of development, add to our defensive capability.

Now, as I've said, I think that a modest on-going R&D program in missile defense makes sense, but deploying a non-working system in 2004 is a blunder. I believe its true purpose is to line the pockets of Bush's pals in the defense contractor arena. It's pork and Pentagon politics.

cantabb - 12:26pm Oct 26, 2003 EST (# 15678 of 15682)

Don't knock it, bluestar23.

Posters like, fredmoore and others, have been quite impressed by rshow, and have said so. That is, besides, the unquestioning loyalty of lchic, the "TRUTH" seeking world asset.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense